get_hotspots

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context with 'No prior indexing required,' implying on-the-fly analysis, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, description explains purpose, metric options, and a key prerequisite. Lacks details on return structure beyond 'full detail breakdown,' but adequate for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. Description repeats metric options and top-N concept but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool 'rank functions across an entire repository by a chosen complexity metric' and 'returns top-N hotspots with full detail breakdown,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_complexity_metrics by focusing on ranking and prioritizing refactoring.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides usage context ('useful for prioritising refactoring efforts') and a prerequisite note ('No prior indexing required'), but does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.